As of mid-December, there were 269,432 active NDIS providers across Australia, the vast majority of which (around 94%) are not registered by the NDIA
Between 2018 and 2024, the number of NDIS participants grew by 452%
A business claiming a connection with the NDIS when there is none is perhaps the most common form of consumer deception arising from the scheme
When government money comes pouring into the private sector, businesses of dubious character tend to spring up quickly.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) may be one of the biggest facilitators of this at the moment.
As of mid-December, there were 269,432 active NDIS providers across Australia, the vast majority of which (around 94%) are what’s known as unregistered providers. It means they haven’t been audited and approved by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) – one of the main regulators – to make sure they’re delivering quality services and sticking to the rules.
Though there are limits on the types of support they can provide, these businesses have comparatively low start-up costs and can enter the market quickly. In some parts of Australia, unregistered NDIS providers seem to be everywhere, and many are exploiting the sprawling system. Between 2018 and 2024, the number of NDIS participants grew by 452%.
These businesses have comparatively low start-up costs and can enter the market quickly
The NDIS currently serves around 761,000 adults and children, and it cost around $49 billion in taxpayer dollars in 2025. Those costs have been predicted by some analysts to rise to $100 billion a year by 2035, overtaking the age pension to become Australia’s most expensive social support program.
The NDIS has been an indispensable life-changer for many, but the scheme remains a work in progress, and it has fallen short of expectations on a number of fronts, especially when it comes to meeting the needs of marginalised groups such as First Nations people and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
A recurring complaint from participants overall is that the NDIS administrative processes are complicated and confusing. The bureaucratic hurdles are many.
It’s also important to point out that nearly half of NDIS providers suffered a financial loss in 2024–25 according to National Disability Services, the peak industry body for non-government disability service organisations.
Many NDIS providers are more focused on reaping profits from the government-subsidised scheme than on helping people with a disability
But there’s a larger overarching issue – that many NDIS providers are more focused on reaping profits from the government-subsidised scheme than on helping people with a disability. This unfortunate fact is contributing heavily to the cost blowouts.
The NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission) have prime responsibility for regulating the scheme. (The NDIS Commission received 29,054 complaints about providers in 2023–24.)
But NDIS providers are also beholden to the Australian Consumer Law, which is overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
The dodgy provider problem is big enough that these three regulators set up a task force in December 2023 to deal with it. In February this year, the ACCC released a report outlining some of the enforcement actions it has taken since then. The transgressions it highlights are standard fare in the broader consumer marketplace – false advertising, overcharging, contracts lopsided in favour of the business, illegal restrictions on returns, and so on.
But when people with a disability are the victims, it gets more concerning.
Ausnew’s dodgy sales tactics and misleading claims
Shortly after the task force was set up, an NDIS provider called Ausnew Home Care Service came under scrutiny for engaging in tactics reminiscent of the big supermarkets and unscrupulous online retailers. (Ausnew, a registered provider, sells everything from therapeutic pillows to mobility scooters.)
In December 2024 the ACCC took the business to court for allegedly promoting “sales” prices by displaying earlier strikethrough prices complete with “last chance” sales banners and countdown clocks. In fact, the “sales” prices were just the regular prices that were always available, and the strikethrough prices never existed. The ACCC is currently undertaking legal action against both Woolworths and Coles for similar conduct.
Then ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said that the “artificial urgency” would have misled consumers, “many of whom were elderly or with a disability requiring support”.
To round out its contraventions of consumer law, Ausnew also made up its own rules about consumer guarantees
Ausnew Home Care Service was also called out for claiming its products were “NDIS approved” on its website and in Google ads, a marketing boast that seems particularly irresistible to certain providers. The problem is that there is no such thing as an NDIS-approved product. The NDIS Commission registers providers, but it doesn’t endorse or approve of particular products.
The way this plays out for NDIS recipients is that they may end up purchasing something – a massage chair for instance – that says or implies it’s NDIS-approved. Then their NDIS claim for reimbursement is rejected because it’s not an eligible support item.
NDIS providers have been called out for false advertising, overcharging, unfair contracts, and more.
To round out its contraventions of consumer law, Ausnew also made up its own rules about consumer guarantees. Its refund policy imposed various conditions and exclusions on refunds or replacements for faulty goods, including that they had to be returned within seven days of purchase in their original packaging, and that it was up to Ausnew whether to provide a store credit or replacement. According to the law, consumers can demand a repair, replacement or refund in the case of a major fault, with no conditions attached. The Ausnew case is ongoing.
In all of the above, Ausnew is not alone. But the business did manage to tick several non-compliance boxes at once.
A business claiming a connection with the NDIS when there is none is perhaps the most common form of consumer deception arising from the scheme. Early last year, the retail chain Bedshed paid $39,600 in penalties after the ACCC issued it with two infringement notices for claiming that some of its mattresses, furniture and bedding accessories were “NDIS approved” and “NDIS permitted”.
“Targeting consumers experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage with misleading advertising is particularly concerning, and we are continuing to investigate companies making similar claims,” ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said at the time.
Around the same time, Thermomix Australia paid $79,200 in ACCC penalties for claiming its Thermomix TM6 mix and Kobold cordless vacuum and mop were connected with the NDIS.
The ACCC will continue to work with taskforce agencies to protect NDIS participants, educate and hold providers that continue to do the wrong thing accountable
ACCC deputy chair Catriona Lowe
The misleading promotional language ran the gamut: “NDIS approved”, “NDIS-registered product”, “NDIS-consumables”, “NDIS assistive technology”, and “NDIS equipment”.
“Each NDIS participant has unique needs, and what’s funded under their plan is determined individually, not through a list of approved products. There are no categories of goods or services which are automatically NDIS approved or funded for all NDIS participants,” Cass-Gottlieb said.
When the ACCC report was released in February this year, ACCC deputy chair Catriona Lowe sounded a warning to businesses set on putting profits ahead of the needs of people with a disability.
“Harm can range from financial loss and life-limiting impacts, to compromising the safety and physical wellbeing of NDIS participants. Such conduct is completely unacceptable and the ACCC will continue to work with taskforce agencies to protect NDIS participants, educate and hold providers that continue to do the wrong thing accountable.”
If it says “NDIS approved” it’s misleading by definition – the NDIS doesn’t approve particular goods or services.
Don’t trust ads that say NDIS funds will cover “all inclusive” holidays. NDIS funding doesn’t cover costs for participants on holidays.
Ads that provide instructions on how to use NDIS funding codes for recreational outings like the movies or theme parks are misleading – the scheme doesn’t cover this.
Don’t trust businesses that suggest an NDIS affiliation or endorsement in their name, such as “NDIS therapies” and the like.
Andy Kollmorgen is the Investigations Editor at CHOICE. He reports on a wide range of issues in the consumer marketplace, with a focus on financial harm to vulnerable people at the hands of corporations and businesses. Prior to CHOICE, Andy worked at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and at the Australian Financial Review along with a number of other news organisations. Andy is a former member of the NSW Fair Trading Advisory Council. He has a Bachelor of Arts in English from New York University. LinkedIn
Andy Kollmorgen is the Investigations Editor at CHOICE. He reports on a wide range of issues in the consumer marketplace, with a focus on financial harm to vulnerable people at the hands of corporations and businesses. Prior to CHOICE, Andy worked at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and at the Australian Financial Review along with a number of other news organisations. Andy is a former member of the NSW Fair Trading Advisory Council. He has a Bachelor of Arts in English from New York University. LinkedIn
For more than 60 years, we've been making a difference for Australian consumers. In that time, we've never taken ads or sponsorship.
Instead we're funded by members who value expert reviews and independent product testing.
With no self-interest behind our advice, you don't just buy smarter, you get the answers that you need.
You know without hesitation what's safe for you and your family. And our recent sunscreens test showed just how important it is to keep business claims in check.
So you'll never be alone when something goes wrong or a business treats you unfairly.
